Medical Board's Opinion Will Prevail Even If Differing Opinions Are Given By Doctors: Meghalaya HC Dismisses Hearing-Impaired Applicant's Plea For Constable Post
The Meghalaya High Court has upheld the decision of the Medical Board and dismissed a plea by a man seeking appointment as Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rifleman in Assam Rifles. The court emphasized the authority of the Medical Board's opinion regarding the petitioner's hearing impairment, stating that despite differing opinions from other doctors, the Medical Board's assessment takes...
The Meghalaya High Court has upheld the decision of the Medical Board and dismissed a plea by a man seeking appointment as Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rifleman in Assam Rifles. The court emphasized the authority of the Medical Board's opinion regarding the petitioner's hearing impairment, stating that despite differing opinions from other doctors, the Medical Board's assessment takes precedence.
Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan observed, “First of all, the petitioner has not challenged the guidelines and that apart, the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed on the main ground that Medical Board had opined that he has hearing impairment.”
“A Constable with hearing loss cannot be construed to be fit enough to hold the said post and even though different opinions have been given by the Doctors in respect of his hearing defect, the opinion rendered by the Medical Board alone will prevail in this case. The petitioner has stated that no final order has been passed, he is aware that the selection process is over and the Medical Board has also certified as to his fitness, holding that he is not fit for appointment due to his hearing impairment,” the CJ added.
The petitioner - Munna Singh - completed his 12th grade and applied for the position of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. They were assigned a Registration Number by the Recruitment Authority and passed the selection process pending a successful medical examination.
During the medical examination on February 3, 2020, at Laitkor, Shillong, it was reported on February 11, 2020, that the petitioner was unfit due to a deviated nasal septum on the right side and chronic suppurative otitis media in the right ear.
Disagreeing with this assessment, the petitioner sought another medical examination at Civil Hospital, Shillong, where it was certified on February 12, 2020, that the previous report contained errors. Specifically, it was stated that the deviated septum could be corrected and there was no suppurative condition in the ears; the eardrum was intact.
The petitioner appealed to the authority to review the medical report, but the Review Medical Board upheld the initial findings, stating that the deviated nasal septum was asymptomatic and the ear condition was not significant, given the intact eardrum and normal hearing sensitivity.
The petitioner argued that their rejection based on the medical report from NEIGRIHMS was unjustified and violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, claiming the report was flawed and arbitrary.
On the contrary, the Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) representing the respondents argued that the petitioner was bound by the guidelines under which he applied for the position. Any deviation from these guidelines cannot be contested by the petitioner.
Furthermore, it was asserted that the petitioner was only sent for a medical examination at his request, and the resulting medical report is conclusive. The DSG emphasized that the Court should not question the expert opinion of the Medical Board unless there is evidence of misconduct or malintent.
The DSG also argued that since the petitioner applied for the position of Constable, he must meet the required fitness standards, including having no hearing impairment.
The Court observed, “Though the petitioner has not challenged the guidelines, this Court has recently interfered with the guidelines in WP(C) No. 410 of 2019~ dated 15.03.2024, insofar as Clause No.67 is concerned on the ground of discrimination/ application of different yard sticks between Doctors and Nurses, which is not the case herein.”
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, this Court cannot sit over the medical opinion offered by a Doctor / Medical Board, so as to come to a different conclusion. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this Writ Petition, which is liable to be dismissed,” the Court concluded while dismissing the writ petition.
Case Title: Shri. Munna Singh vs Union of India and Ors